Again, those are not scientific evidence...just like a Harry Potter book by itself isn't proof wizards exist when someone finds that book in 4,000
years!

2) are there any bipedal dinosaurs?
check

And all the evidence we have suggests they died out 64mil years before the first humans. So apart from crocs, iguanas, and other reptiles, there's no
dinosaurs left when humans were around.

3) are there any amphibian characteristics in humans?
check.

What characteristics do we share with amphibians???

4) is there evidence of hybridization of other species with humans in ancient texts?
check.

Even if that's the case, like mentioned earlier, ancient texts without further evidence aren't proof of anything.

5) are there any explanations for where they may have went, in ancient texts?
check

Again...not proof of anything! And in many cases it completely contradicts scientific findings...

6) is there any evidence besides written?
check.

What evidence???

7) are people currently encountering them?
check

Isn't it funny that no one ever took a photo...I mean, we now all got cameras on our phones for years. Witness testimony is NOT reliable evidence!

8) are there enough people encountering them to suggest they aren't hallucinating, lying, dreaming, crazy, etc?
check.

They're still a tiiiiiiiiny fraction of the world's population. Who gave you the right to set the limit between craziness/hallucinations and
reality?

9) are the odds in favor of them actually existing on other planets?
check

Odds of extraterrestrial life existing isn't that bad given the enormous size of the universe...but we can't speculate much about their looks. Even
tiny changes in the environment of a planet can have drastic impacts on the type and looks of the life forms living there.

I'm not sure what you were trying to accomplish with this list....but not a single point would count as credible evidence, or god forbid proof, that
those human-reptile-amphibian crossbreeds ever existed.

52 and the tombs broke open. The bodies of many holy people who had died were raised to life.
53 They came out of the tombs after Jesus’ resurrection and[e] went into the holy city and appeared to many people.

A flue immobilized me for a while, so I missed active participation in a period. I summarize:

Quote: ["The Syriac Orthodox Church is one of the oldest churches in the world....]

In your own inimitable system of 'defining' things your way (mostly contrary to how they define themselves), you have 'defined' core messages of
competing 'maps' of existence, the methodologies connected with them, who has 'expertise' etc, so it all fit with your predetermined answer. And when
even this doesn't suffice, you fake evidence or ignore it.

So in this context of 'oldest church', does this mean as in a building, a congregation or a doctrinal structure? Will you 'define away' challenges to
your preconceptions, because they are called temples, continuous living non-christian traditions or abstract worldviews starting from other
epistemological bases than your own?

I can mention Jain as such an alternative, and I ofcourse expect you to be an 'expert' on the subject based on your usual self-defined
circle-argumentation. As examplified by this (on the Syriac Orthodox church]:

Quote: ["They predate the gnostic break off groups."]

Where do you get this kind of nonsense from? Elaine Pagel? 'Hard-core' gnosticism is older than the christianities.

Quote: ["How does that prove walking on water or any of that? They were the witnesses of that. They continued to live and go about their buisness even
as the rest of the Romans collapsed and desperation corrupted the church.

This is proof that those things were witnessed. Otherwise, their church would never exist."]

How does anything 'prove' anything outside its own reference-frame? Science has made an excellent map of the territory it describes, including a
precise definition of its own methodology. Logic has rules, general semantics operates on quite clear lines, as does epistemology. Your presented
alternative is to take anything and nothing, embellish it and declare yourself sage.

Quote: [" There's tons of examples of good people. but what happens when people forget why they are being good, or the reasons for it? The Dark ages
is a great example. We had to re-learn hos to be good. And without the people's ability to read, only the very rare literate person could actually do
good. And they were even fewer, whom did good. and almost always it was a religious person."]

The european dark ages are indeed a good example, as they were intiated by the only people who were literate, christian clergy. The common people were
discouraged from literacy, and I have big problems with your rewriting of history into 'the religious persons' doing 'good'. You can include Calvin
into the group of postulated 'good' religious persons, if you have your still undefined 'true' christianity in mind.

Quote: [" History teaches that without a comparison, people forget what good and evil are. And regions were made to justify why people were being
good. Can you show me an example in history where people justified good just for the sake of it, and that carried on for more than a few generations?
lets say maybe 3-5?"]

In the few nations, which broke free of the yoke of organised religion earliest, secular or utilitarian morality has functioned very well indeed, and
shows no signs of disappearing. So now please circle-argumentate again, and redefine 'good' as meaning YOUR idea of 'good'.

Quote on the stability of buddhism: ["Again, no. because like I said. His message is already changing by his followers. Clearly nothing divine is
moving if in just one generation people are already splitting. In Christianity, very few split off. And it took generations."]

Your knowledge of buddhism is as small as your knowledge of science, logic and e.g. gnosticism. First of all, there's no 'divine' implied in Buddha's
'map'. Secondly buddhistic 'splits' are at an abstract level more directed at finer academic points of their practise. Thirdly the christianities
split already at NT time. And as you usually insist on presenting NT as a continuous and coherent tradition, your argument is void. Anyone without
answers before facts will, reading acts and epistles see the christianities' split openly and out in the day from square one.

Quote: [" To use a quote from the bible, things made by men don't last. Things made by God do. And I think the clear distinction is there"]

Circle-argumentation. Your arguments pre-suppose the validity of the bible, and the bible supports your arguments.

Quote on the (still undefined 'good' and 'bad' christian guys and their actions): ["Weren't those perpetrated by a very power hungry church that had
become more a political entity and completely ignoring their own faith? Didn't some folks in the North break off and go back to the right way after
enough anger?

I live in this 'North', and as I STILL don't know what's a 'true christian'; your question is completely rhetorical. What I DO know is, that the
'North' broke free of christianity as soon as it was practically possible.

Quote on different christian denominations: [" What honestly makes those dominations different? Who leads the church? How to spend your money? I was
told young that it's pathetic what divides them. I decided to go and see. I cannot honestly find much difference amongst most of them. The difference
is in attitude, not faith."]

This can possibly be of interest for christians, who spend their lives with endless scholastic ruminations. From a non-christian perspective we see
the broad group of extremist christianities fighting rather viciously amongst themselves (apart from them fighting most everything else also).

Quote: ["The Bhuddist divided very shortly after his death and continued to break apart into increasingly different systems. You have atheistic ones,
ones who believe Buddha was a great prophet or god, even though he said not to think of him like that, you have those whom believe as he actually
preached, etc etc. These are quite large differences."]

That would suit you, if it was true. Unfortunately it isn't, except in your fantasies.

Quote: [" I actually look into and criticism my own faith and many faiths. I'll admit I know more on a few than others. I'm still exploring them. But
from what I've learned, my beliefs are true."]

The 'few' you know of, are outweighted by the many you know next to nothing about. Besides your learning- and 'processing' methodology/procedures is
selective to the point of absurdity.

Quote: ["You never said how I was pseudo scientific nor what's changed. I'm not really changing in how I post or answer."]

ANY person with the slightest inkling of what authentic science is would have related to my pointing out of scientific perspectives. You have
consequently responded to my science-approaches, as if these approaches are some kind of demagogic debating-points, which can be 'talked' into fitting
your opinions.

Quote: ["The crusades were not religious wars. They were economic"]

I have already mentioned the Baltic crusades. And when it comes to the herecy crusades, the involvement of the church was ideological, while the
church's political allies hade economical interests.

Quote: ["My beliefs state clearly that the ancestor of those whom call to the Muslim faith were promised to lead great nations and be a great people.
It's happened. And I can't view that as coincidence."]

I suggest, that you try to get some basic understanding of 'coincidence' as 'evidence'. And your 'beliefs' are of no possible significance in this
context.

Quote: [" Now as for the jews, yes, it was for religious reasons fueled by a hating Pope. Again, not my fault as a Christian."]

So when it suits you, catholics and protestants are not so different. When it suits you, you are an (as yet undefined) 'christian', washing his hands
of the roman church. How convenient, that you're unbound by any of your own opinions.

Quote: ["Example, undo and I disagree on some issues. But the behavior by her posts that I've seen and her own beliefs tell me she is on track to
becoming a good Christian."]

And your posts tell me, that you have some rather well-developed delusions of grandeur. Who do you think you are to evaluate Undo in this
condescending way?

Quote: ["You see no one is a perfectly good Christians."]

The inter-christian repenting-sinner masochism is completely uninteresting and irrelevant to me. I'm only interested in christians' ability to live
together with the rest of mankind without pushing their attitudes or even worse use violence to that purpose.

the problem is, you want me to believe that the entire
ancient world was writing harry potter books.

eye witness testimony is sufficient to put people in jail for the rest of their lives. that science doesn't accept it is a distraction, as there are
many cases where it's accepted, provided it fits the paradigm. people swore up and down on previous missing link fossils, and they hadn't even seen
them themselves, and hadn't seen any evidence that they were legit, either. turned out in both cases, the fossils were fake. i can guarantee you
that if i had told you, before they were discovered to be fake (who made that decision!) you would claim i was full of crap because you are willing to
accept literally anything they say. if they told you

in fact, alot of current evolutionary science is based on science before we had the ability to test DNA or read the implications. not that i
disagree entirely with evolution, just showing you how science is not as emipirical as you think it is. it's an exclusive club, quite similar to the
priesthood of the holy roman empire, who tells the rest of us what to believe, no matter how many mistakes they make along the way, but literally, no
other world view is allowed, period, end of the story. no ancient history. no ancient artifacts. only bones they don't know enough about to say
definitively and from which they can concoct any story they want, and get other scientists to agree with them simply because of who they are. it's
the same as it ever was.

eye witness testimony is sufficient to put people in jail for the rest of their lives

Only people who witnessed the crime relatively recently. Not 30 years later from a second hand witness. Also you can assess the eye witness there and
then to see whether they are indeed credible and not, for example, a compulsive liar. We have no way of knowing whether the authors of the bible or
the gospels were legitimate authors who got their information from legitimate sources.

eye witness testimony is sufficient to put people in jail for the rest of their lives

Only people who witnessed the crime relatively recently. Not 30 years later from a second hand witness. Also you can assess the eye witness there and
then to see whether they are indeed credible and not, for example, a compulsive liar. We have no way of knowing whether the authors of the bible or
the gospels were legitimate authors who got their information from legitimate sources.

it was a reference to recent eye witness testimonies of people who claim to have seen reptilian-mammalians, and amphibian-mammalians first hand. i
was establishing a paper and artifact trail to support my theory, also including science regarding dinosaurs, reptiles and amphibians.

who is a compulsive liar? is the entire ancient world filled with compulsive liars? and if so, what does that say about people now?

["in fact, alot of current evolutionary science is based on science before we had the ability to test DNA or read the implications. not that i
disagree entirely with evolution, just showing you how science is not as emipirical as you think it is. it's an exclusive club, quite similar to the
priesthood of the holy roman empire, who tells the rest of us what to believe, no matter how many mistakes they make along the way, but literally, no
other world view is allowed, period, end of the story. no ancient history. no ancient artifacts. only bones they don't know enough about to say
definitively and from which they can concoct any story they want, and get other scientists to agree with them simply because of who they are. it's
the same as it ever was."]

You are stereotyping science the same way as some people stereotype religion in general or concerning a specific religion.

In any case the difference between the basics of science and a faith-religion (assumptional doctrines) is quite big. And at the level of commonly
applied science and theology, it's the difference between objectivity and subjectivity.(This dichotomy can be considered from more 'advanced'
perspectives; philosophy of science, epistemology, philosophy, even general semantics or 'gnosis'-theories, but in that case it has to be specified,
so as not to confuse perspective-levels).

The outlines are quite clear, as are the associated methodologies. Unfortunately a vague grey zone exists, where religionists mix the two systems. The
'exclusive' science you refer to, often referred to as 'scientism', is increasingly something of the past and contemporary scientists prefer to
put it into contexts, where burden-of-proof becomes an important factor.

it was a reference to recent eye witness testimonies of people who claim to have seen reptilian-mammalians, and amphibian-mammalians first
hand. i was establishing a paper and artifact trail to support my theory, also including science regarding dinosaurs, reptiles and amphibians.

who is a compulsive liar? is the entire ancient world filled with compulsive liars? and if so, what does that say about people now?

Oh well, they're even less credible then. There is no such thing as an amphibian-mammal or a reptilian-mammal, you're either a reptile/amphibian or
a mammal you can't be both.

I was using the compulsive liar as an example of someone who's testimony would not be admissible as evidence.

You are stereotyping science the same way as some people stereotype religion in general or concerning a specific religion.

that's true, i'm sorry.

it's so easy to fall into that trap, after having to defend even one iota of your research. imagine my position. i get
it from all sides. many atheists i talk to think i'm crazy and so do many christians. some ufologists don't like it because it adds weight to the
bible, but do like the sumerian and egyptian stuff. so it's like a love-hate relationship. my sis warned me about this. she said, (paraphrasing)
"too controversial, will cause you problems you don't need, particularly considering your health" (emotional and mental abuse, if borders on that,
when people start telling you that you're not smart, or not quite good enough, etc. that can wear on you after awhile, and it almost seems
masochistic of me to keep getting embroiled in these kinds of debates/discussions, knowing full well that some folks ARE going to verbally smack me
upside the head (and i'm going to end up doing the same thing, making the entire event a negative experience). it's just that i learn from other
people too. research what they say, figure out what my new position is on the subject, etc.

ah well, it's just i don't want to watch i love lucy re-runs for the rest of my life.

["it was a reference to recent eye witness testimonies of people who claim to have seen reptilian-mammalians, and amphibian-mammalians first hand. i
was establishing a paper and artifact trail to support my theory, also including science regarding dinosaurs, reptiles and amphibians."

I am one of those people, who've experienced reptilian-mammalians at close quarter and for an extended period (two meters and 3-4 hours). In a
perceptual state, where I both had my daily-use perceptions and some 'extra' also.

Being more rationally and scientifically inclined than 'trusting my own senses', I refuse to draw ANY final conclusions from my experience, except
that something anomalous definitely took place. And a rather extensive net-search and direct communication with those having similar experiences
justifies an extremely guarded approach to the phenomenon.

There are as many 'explanations' and 'interpretations' as there are experiences, with only a few openings for comparative studies. And in any case
comparative studies can develop so far into inductive reasoning, that they become worthless. The curse of cottage-industry new-age'ism.

i'm not a new ager, though. in fact, i don't have a religious affiliation. the closet comparison would be "protestant" but i also find interesting
bits in catholicism too, and judaism (obviously), buddhism, hinduism, etc. to some, that sounds like esoterica or new age-ism, but it isn't. i
developed this initially from realizing certain threads wound thru all the ancient histories and the big barriers to understanding were things like
"language variants" or cultural "norms", which were further complicated by physical distance and time span. when i realized that some of these
boundaries actually supported the validity of the evidence i did find, i knew i was on to something.

one of the problems we all seem to have in this regard (and it's nearly universal) is the belief that only our world view is accurate, and straying
outside that boundary is nearly always grounds for harrassment of various kinds. this is just an artifact of human nature, particularly at the level
of mob mentality. i should learn to accept it but i have this really strong repulsion to the concept of being unpleasantly surprised by reality --
meaning, i don't want to find out some day, that i was not telling people the truth to the best of my ability (which unfortunately, may require you
leave your comfort zone at times).

the problem is, you want me to believe that the entire
ancient world was writing harry potter books.

No I don't. When an ancient text describes Rome, and archeologists go an dig according to where the texts mention interesting stuff, and they find
something that fits the text...then that's great. But that doesn't mean I want to be a blind sheep and believe everything in texts...especially if
it has NO other objective evidence backing it up.

Texts and paintings/sculptures show animal-human hybrids (which isn't unusual given that they often worshiped animals)...yet we have no other
evidence that would prove they existed. No fossils, nothing.

On it's own, ancient texts are interesting...but they completely fail as credible proof.

the problem is, you want me to believe that the entire
ancient world was writing harry potter books.

No I don't. When an ancient text describes Rome, and archeologists go an dig according to where the texts mention interesting stuff, and they find
something that fits the text...then that's great. But that doesn't mean I want to be a blind sheep and believe everything in texts...especially if
it has NO other objective evidence backing it up.

Texts and paintings/sculptures show animal-human hybrids (which isn't unusual given that they often worshiped animals)...yet we have no other
evidence that would prove they existed. No fossils, nothing.

On it's own, ancient texts are interesting...but they completely fail as credible proof.

alrighty then. where's your evidence that they are telling the truth, other than what they told you? have you gone and dug up the bones and had them
dated yourself, and verified the other data too, first hand? i'm willing to wager, that the closet you have come to all this is to find some
trilobite or other small prehistoric fossil, which in the mind of the believer, is evidence enough (And of course it is evidence that the planet is
ancient, and evidence that papal interpretation of biblical text was inaccurate regarding the age of the planet, at least as far as the chunk of land
it was found in, i suppose. i mean an argument could be ventured upon that it was actually embedded in some ancient asteroid that crashed into the
planet at some point in the distant past, but that's not the point you're trying to make, and neither am i, atm).

i just want you to be honest enough with yourself, that you begin to comprehend that what you are currently taking part in is the same thing the holy
roman empire insisted people take part in, in the ancient past: one interpretation is valid, period. it's not that hard to believe it began its
life that way either, since the entire movement was started by catholic professors who were accustomed to people believing EVERYTHING they said,
without evidence, other than referring to the interpretation of their experts (papal authority). now we just have science authority, which acts just
like papal authority. if it weren't for people like michio kaku, we would likely never hear a thing about multiple dimensions and quantum realities
because they sound too much like religion.

You clearly believe scientific method is a subjective process when in REALITY it isn't. Scientists constantly challenge eachother's findings, it's
not as if one can just come out and make a crazy statement like "women come from ribs of men" without having other scientists rip his hypothesis
apart. In astro-physics for example, a hypothesis lives only for around 9mo on average, and most are rejected because of some flaws...only few make it
to theories.

You clearly underestimate the amount of evidence we have for the age of the earth. We got a VERY accurate picture from various sources of evidence.
There's no doubt the earth is 4.5bil years old...and we have a pretty accurate idea about the timeline of species evolving.

You on the other hand only have ancient scriptures to back up your claims. You blindly believe without having any sort of OBJECTIVE evidence. In fact,
you already BELIEVE (!!) those creatures existed without having proper backup to support that claim...you believe because you WANT to believe.

If you want anyone to take your hypothesis seriously, you'd need either fossils to back it up, prove that carbon dating and all the other dating
methods are wrong (clue: they aren't), prove that every single fossil that proves evolution (hundreds of thousands over the last 150 years) have been
somehow planted to mislead us, prove that the DNA evidence that shows we have a common ancestor with monkeys is also somehow a trick, and prove that
someone dumped migratory remains just to mislead scientists.

But instead, you show us a statue of a fat woman without a head and clearly visible foot...and then claim it was originally a reptilian and had
claws...but of course those features are gone, so no one can check up on it. You also rely on ARTISTS to provide evidence...I wonder if in 4000 years
people will use Picasso to prove the world was blue.

One line of Christian thought that is mainly a Catholic-Orthodox one is that Jesus went to Hell. I too believe this. Some protestants reserve their
opinion, while others cannot believe it for their own personal reasons. However, the Gospels and New Testament say it quite clearly. Jesus went to
hell. He spent 3 days in hell and, to describe it metaphorically, unlocked the gates of heaven. Before Jesus everyone went to hell, but there was a
reserved place for God's people among the nations. Jesus set these people free from hell and when he left hell he brought them with him. This is
reinforced in many places. It is not isolated to Mathew: Luke 16, Ephesians 4 and Psalm 68. It goes all the way into the old testament. Jesus died and
went to hell like we all did at the time. He suffered the same punishment of sin, even though he did no crime.

I've rejected what most people define things in many places because what mankind defines things today is rarely the way it is defined in real
matters. What can I say? I look stuff up.

Oldest church in that it's one of the oldest communities of Christians in the world. Going back to just a few decades after Christ died. They've
never really changes. Other than adapting to the political will of those who rule them from time to time. But that never really changed their faith.
Actually I will tell you I do not know a lot about the religions past mainland China. So I cannot say unless you inform me what it is about Jain that
makes it relevant to the conversation. Then I will look it up and deduce my own opinion. I haven't faked or ignore anything. And if you want to make
that claim, I invite you to prove it. Gnosticism in it's current state, hasn't much changed since after the Christians abused them. Before that it
was something else that was related to Christianity. However, yes, traces of it predate Christianity. But these people were not the same as we know of
today.

And besides, that just goes back to my original point. They've been swaying all over the place, thus showing them not really to be from God. The core
of what Gnosticism is originates from Christianity. However, Gnosticism has for some time been known to be like glue and absorb any culture around
them. Again, return to my original point, proving they are not really with God.

Their frame of reference is a mere couple decades. And all along they never really deviated from where they began. They chose to be exiled from
Catholicism than change their ways. That takes cojones. I'm following very clear logic and scientific rules. What people have changed over the eons?
What people have not? And better still, what people have changed one way, but returned to where they changed from? These simple questions guide me in
viewing these people. It's quite simple really. Whenever you want to see a state of change for comparison, you take something that is older and check
it with it's derivative for something that is younger. This is also the same method for comparison to see what evolved from what. You take a common
ancestor that is still alive and you compare it to it's relatives that still live, and then the fossil record. This is how you get a very accurate
evolutionary tree. When doing this for cultures, the common ancestor still living are small groups of individuals that have been cut off from the
world and unchanged, and the break off groups are often the cultures that are ins wide spread areas not isolated and have a much larger terrain to
deal with. Then we look at the fossil evidence, or in this case, the ruins of cities and cultures and compare them to the two. If we get all three
being mainly the same, then we know they are the same culture and that it has not changed. If we get derivative works, we know the culture is related,
but has changed from those cut off. If the cut off people and the extinct people's evidence look the same, we know that the cut off people are an
excellent point for comparison to the derivative peoples to view how things have changed. Some examples of this process include research in
Indo-European pantheons. We've been able to link most any non-abrahamic religion from Spain to Pakistan to the same group of gods that a collection
of people worshiped in India.

This is the best scientific method for comparison. And what we get for Christianity is a clear picture. People always seeking the same methods and
ways of the original Christians int he first few decades of Christianity. The Catholics broke off the path, but then the protestants broke off to go
back. In today the Catholics are moving int he same direction as the protestants. This is one example. They don't change. Once in a while a king or
queen ruins it, but the people just go right back to the way things were.

number one: if you are going to tear apart a scientific teaching (whether hypothesis, theory or "fact"), you first must have the clout to do so.
the clout requirements go as follows:

1) you must not suggest that the core teachings are inaccurate or falsehoods. for example, if you believe evolution is wrong in any way, shape or
form, you will not be allowed to challenge anything else and expect your challenge to be taken seriously. even, and especially, if the criticism is
covering how some aspect of one of the core teachings is inaccurate.

2) you must realize that some scientist's theories enjoy the fame and protected status of the scientist himself/herself. this is an unspoken
reality, because any mention of it auto-generates the assumption that you're racist or sexist. any attempt to contest them will be viewed as an
attempt at displaying some social ill. as a result, you will not be given the clout necessary to seriously tear apart a teaching of this individual,
because he/she is enjoying a special position that defies the rest of the laws of empirical science. if several of these individuals of this
particular caliber are present, that relegates a huge portion of the data to special protected status, regardless of how much proof you may have the
contrary. you will NOT be heard or taken seriously.

3) reality of social constructs proves that social accpetance plays a huge role in the way your claims are viewed. for example, female scientists of
the past, often had their work commandeered by men, who used it to further their own careers. this is also applicable to the whole religious vs.
non-religious question, as some feel that a person who believes in things he cannot see better be a quantum physicist, as that is the extent they are
willing to go (begrudingly in some cases) on the whole topic of invisible realities.

etc; i'm not saying this is isolated to science either. all social constructs have trends like this. it's a mob mentality feature but pretending
it doesn't happen in science, is not viewing science with the same critical eye you view the rest of the planet's constructs.

number two: if the challenger has met the previous requirements, and is not attacking a core teaching, is not attacking a theory of a person of
protected status, and is not religious, the new requirement is how much does he/she qualify vs. his/her peers

1) if the challenger is a graduate of a community college, who is questioning the theory of a graduate of harvard, this may be used as an excuse to
ignore the challenger's challenge.

2) if the challenger has a lower IQ than the scientist who created the theory/fact/hypothesis, or the scientists reviewing the challenge, this may be
used as an excuse to ignore the challenger's challenge

3) if the challenger has other theories/hypotheses that are contested or frowned upon, this may be used as an excuse to ignore the challenger's
challenge

4) if it is learned that the challenger is a different political leaning than the most influential members of the critical review board or poor,
young, from an unpopular social/racial bracket, or unpleasant (physically ugly, smells bad, big boobs that are distracting, etc), this may be used as
an excuse to ignore the challenger's challenge. it also may be used as an excuse to accept the challenger's challenge even if it's demonstrably
wrong, depending on who's on the review board. meaning that it is a political construct as well as a social one.

so even if the excuse of the challenger being a religious wacko doesn't fit the mold, the system appears to be set up to change so slowly as to be
nearly imperceptible.

Originally posted by undo
1) if the challenger is a graduate of a community college, who is questioning the theory of a graduate of harvard, this may be used as an excuse to
ignore the challenger's challenge.

2) if the challenger has a lower IQ than the scientist who created the theory/fact/hypothesis, or the scientists reviewing the challenge, this may be
used as an excuse to ignore the challenger's challenge

3) if the challenger has other theories/hypotheses that are contested or frowned upon, this may be used as an excuse to ignore the challenger's
challenge

4) if it is learned that the challenger is a different political leaning than the most influential members of the critical review board or poor,
young, from an unpopular social/racial bracket, or unpleasant (physically ugly, smells bad, big boobs that are distracting, etc), this may be used as
an excuse to ignore the challenger's challenge. it also may be used as an excuse to accept the challenger's challenge even if it's demonstrably
wrong, depending on who's on the review board. meaning that it is a political construct as well as a social one.

so even if the excuse of the challenger being a religious wacko doesn't fit the mold, the system appears to be set up to change so slowly as to be
nearly imperceptible.

You have a complete misconception about science. Yes, misrepresentation happens, but eventually they're uncovered because of scientific method. You
are trying to personify science, when in reality it's not. Doesn't matter if you're "debunking" Einstein, if your evidence holds up after peer
reviews, you have successfully debunked something.

Why do you think the theory of evolution hasn't been debunked yet? Not because there's some giant scientific conspiracy where they all work together
to hide the truth (and why would they want that in the first place???), but rather because no credible evidence against it has come to light. You're
whole "information is being suppressed" claim is hogwash given that we live in the 21st century and that we have the Internet where everyone and his
dog can state his opinion or present theories.

If you're seriously doubting the planet is 4.5bil years old, or the timeline of evolution, you should at least present some credible proof. Everything
you posted is pure speculation, that's NOT scientific, you're just GUESSING based on what artists and writers did thousands of years ago. And even
worse, a lot of the things they produced completely contradicts scientific findings...but instead of doubting the weak source
(texts/paintings/sculptures), you claim there's a giant scientific conspiracy based on faulty "logic".

That's the same thing religious people do when they say "god did it" whenever we don't have an explanation for it. Or when they claim "days" in
Genesis aren't really days (but rather millenia or millions of years) in an effort to "make it fit better" with our current scientific knowledge. They
cherry pick the parts that work and take them literally, and completely make stuff up if it doesn't fit...

Anyway, we're both a bit off-topic. In summary, the feeling of being attacked comes from an increase in free speech and the increasing scientific
knowledge that sometimes cuts off the legs of religious hypotheses.

and finally, number three:
if the challenger is in fact, attempting to add new data to pre-existing data, he/she must meet all of the above critieria (and we haven't even
touched on whether the data itself is valid).. how the heck scientists get a chance to add any new ideas to science books is beyond me. it's that
infinitely receeding evidentary horizon i've heard tell about. it's a very prejudice horizon as well, like a filter with such extreme limitations,
it's a wonder we know anything at all.

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.